AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The case involves the Defendant, Thomas Garcia, who was accused of engaging in sexual activity with a thirteen-year-old Victim while visiting his cousin, Casey Valdez. The incident occurred during a night when the Victim and her younger sister were under the care of their older sister, K.M., who lived with Mr. Valdez. After an evening spent together, the Defendant committed the act after K.M. and Mr. Valdez had retired to their bedroom (para 2).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Bernalillo County, Charles W. Brown, District Judge.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant: Contended that the district court erred by instructing the jury on the uncharged offense of CSP IV and argued that his two convictions for CSP IV violated his constitutional protection against double jeopardy (para 1).
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State): Moved to include the lesser included offense of CSP IV during the trial, after presenting its evidence but before formally resting. The State argued that CSP IV was a lesser included charge of the two charged counts of CSP II (para 3).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court committed reversible error by instructing the jury on the uncharged offense of CSP IV.
• Whether the Defendant’s two convictions for CSP IV violated his constitutional protection against double jeopardy.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals held that the jury was properly instructed on the CSP IV charges as lesser included charges of CSP II.
• The Court further held that one of the Defendant’s convictions for CSP IV must be vacated due to a violation of his right to be free from double jeopardy (para 17).

Reasons

• Per M. Monica Zamora, with Linda M. Vanzi, Chief Judge, and Daniel J. Gallegos, Judge, concurring:
  The Court found that the instruction for CSP IV as a lesser included offense was appropriate, rejecting the Defendant's argument that he was not on notice to prepare a defense for CSP IV based on the victim's age. The Court applied the strict elements test and the cognate approach, determining that under the specific facts of this case, CSP IV was a lesser included charge of CSP II. The Court also concluded that the Defendant received constitutionally adequate notice of the lesser offense, given the circumstances of the case and the evidence presented at trial (paras 4-12).
  Regarding the double jeopardy claim, the Court conducted a de novo review and applied a two-step analysis to discern legislative intent on the unit of prosecution. The Court found no clear legislative intent in the statute and, applying the six-factor analysis from Herron v. State, determined that the Defendant’s acts were not separated by sufficient indicia of distinctness to justify two convictions for CSP IV. Consequently, the Court held that one of the convictions must be vacated to uphold the Defendant's right to be free from double jeopardy (paras 13-16).